Author: TSA Press

This
post
applies
to
Tennessee
investment
advisers
and
private
fund
managers
relying
on
the
de
minimis
exemption
from
registration
under
Tennessee
securities
law.
On
July
10,
2025,
the
Tennessee
Securities
Division
published

a
new
interpretation
significantly
affecting
how
this
exemption
interacts
with
custody
requirements.
This
advisory
outlines
the
Securities
Division’s
new
position
and
discusses
alternative
compliance
strategies
fund
managers
may
consider.

Many
Tennessee
investment
advisers
have
relied
on
the
“de
minimis
exemption”
under
Tennessee
Securities
Rule
0780-04-03-.05(1)(b)
to
avoid
registration.
This
exemption
applies
to
advisers
with
fewer
than
15
clients
(counting
each
fund
as
one
client)
who
do
not
hold
themselves
out
publicly
as
investment
advisers.
Firms
historically
understood
and
interpreted
this
exemption
as
removing
them
from
the
definition
of
“investment
adviser,”
thereby
exempting
them
from
registration
and
all
other
requirements
applicable
to
investment
advisers,
including
the
Tennessee
Custody
Rule
(Rule
0780-04-03-.07).
However,
as
discussed
below,
the
Tennessee
Securities
Division
has
recently
taken
a
different
position.

The
Securities
Division’s
New
Position

On
July
10,
2025,
the
Securities
Division
released
an
interpretation
asserting
that
the
de
minimis
exemption
does
not,
and
never
did,
exempt
advisers
from
the
Tennessee
Custody
Rule
(Rule
0780-04-03-.07).
The
Securities
Division
further
asserted
that
only

registered
investment
advisers
can
rely
on
the
Tennessee
Custody
Rule
to
satisfy
custody
requirements.

Custody
is
a
significant
issue
for
private
fund
managers
because
of
the
typical
legal
structure
of
private
funds.
A
private
fund
manager
typically
also
serves
as
the
fund’s
general
partner,
managing
member,
or
comparable
role.
This
position
inherently
grants
the
adviser
legal
ownership
of
or
direct
access
to
the
fund’s
bank
and
brokerage
accounts,
including
the
authority
to
wire
funds,
execute
trades,
and
deduct
advisory
fees.
Regulators,
including
the
Tennessee
Securities
Division,
have
traditionally
taken
the
position
that
having
this
level
of
access
and
authority
generally
constitutes
“custody”
of
client
assets.

By
claiming
that
private
fund
managers
relying
upon
the
de
minimis
exemption
must
comply
with
the
Tennessee
Custody
Rule
and
simultaneously
claiming
that
such
compliance
is
not
possible
for
fund
managers
exempt
from
registration
under
the
de
minimis
rule,
the
Securities
Division’s
new
position
effectively
requires
a
Tennessee-based
private
fund
manager
to
either
(i)
register
with
the
Securities
Division
(unless
it
is
an
SEC-registered
investment
adviser
that
complies
with
SEC
Rule
206(4)-2),
or
(ii)
qualify
for
a
separate
exemption
such
as
the
Private
Fund
Exemption.

The
Private
Fund
Exemption

The
Securities
Division’s
guidance
directs
firms
toward
the
“Private
Fund
Exemption”
under
Tennessee
Securities
Rule
0780-04-03-.05(1)(c).
For
advisers
who
provide
advice
solely
to
one
or
more
qualifying
private
funds,
this
exemption
relieves
them
from
registration
requirements
and
from
the
Tennessee
Custody
Rule’s
compliance
obligations.
However,
it
introduces
a
separate
set
of
conditions
that
may
be
incompatible
with
the
operations
of
many
smaller
firms.

To
qualify
for
this
exemption,
a
private
fund
adviser
must
meet
several
requirements.
First,
neither
the
adviser
nor
any
of
its
control
persons
may
be
subject
to
a
“bad
actor”
disqualification
under
SEC
Rule
506(d)
of
Regulation
D.
Second,
the
adviser
must
file
exempt
reporting
adviser
reports
on
Form
ADV
electronically
through
the
Investment
Adviser
Registration
Depository
(IARD)
system.
Third,
the
adviser
must
pay
an
initial
reporting
fee
of
$150
to
the
Securities
Division,
followed
by
an
annual
renewal
fee
of
$150.

Additional
requirements
apply
to
advisers
managing
3(c)(1)
funds
that
are
not
venture
capital
funds.
For
these
advisers,
the
exemption
requires
all
fund
investors
to
meet
the
definition
of
a
“qualified
client”
at
the
time
they
purchase
securities.
Under
Rule
205-3
of
the
Investment
Advisers
Act
of
1940,
a
“qualified
client”
is
a
natural
person
who
either
(i)
has
a
net
worth
exceeding
$2.2
million
(excluding
the
value
of
their
primary
residence),
or
(ii)
has
at
least
$1.1
million
of
assets
under
management
with
the
adviser
immediately
after
the
investment.
At
the
time
of
purchase,
the
adviser
must
also
provide
each
beneficial
owner
with
written
disclosures
that
outline:
(i)
any
services
provided
directly
to
the
individual,
(ii)
the
duties
owed
by
the
adviser
to
the
fund
and
its
investors,
(iii)
any
material
conflicts
of
interest,
and
(iv)
any
other
material
information
affecting
the
owner’s
rights
or
responsibilities.
The
adviser
must
also
obtain
audited
financial
statements
for
the
fund
each
year
and
deliver
a
copy
directly
to
each
investor.

For
firms
managing
existing
funds,
there
is
a
grandfathering
provision
for
3(c)(1)
funds
that
already
have
investors
who
are
not
qualified
clients.
If
the
fund
existed
before
December
25,
2023,
and
had
at
least
one
investor
who
was
not
a
qualified
client
as
of
that
date,
it
may
retain
its
exempt
status
under
certain
conditions.
After
that
date,
the
fund
may
not
accept
any
additional
investors
who
do
not
meet
the
qualified
client
standard.
Furthermore,
the
adviser
must
still
provide
the
mandated
written
disclosures
regarding
services
and
duties
to
all
existing
beneficial
owners
and
must
deliver
annual
audited
financial
statements
to
them.

While
the
Private
Fund
Exemption
offers
an
alternative
to
registration
and
custody
requirements,
it
imposes
its
own
compliance
obligations.
For
many
smaller
funds,
the
requirement
to
limit
the
investor
pool
to
qualified
clients,
combined
with
the
costs
of
annual
financial
statement
audits,
may
significantly
impact
the
fund’s
economic
viability
and
business
model.

Legal
Uncertainties
Regarding
the
Securities
Division’s
Position

The
Securities
Division’s
interpretation
is
inconsistent
with
the
plain
text
of
Tennessee’s
securities
regulations.
Under
Tennessee
Securities
Rule
0780-04-03-.05(1)(b),
individuals
or
firms
meeting
the
de
minimis
criteria
(having
fewer
than
fifteen
clients
in
the
preceding
twelve
months
and
not
holding
themselves
out
publicly
as
investment
advisers)
are
explicitly
stated
to
be
“exempted
from
the
definition
of
investment
adviser
.
.
.
[and]
the
registration
requirements
for
investment
advisers.”

The
Tennessee
Custody
Rule
(Rule
0780-04-03-.07)
expressly
limits
its
application
to
“any
investment
adviser
in
this
state”
who
has
custody
or
possession
of
client
funds
or
securities.
If
a
firm
is
expressly
excluded
from
the
definition
of
an
investment
adviser
by
one
rule,
under
traditional
principles
of
regulatory
interpretation,
a
neighboring
regulation
explicitly
governing
the
conduct
of
an
“investment
adviser”
would
not
apply
to
that
firm.

The
Securities
Division
attempts
to
anchor
its
position
in
the
anti-fraud
statute
(Tenn.
Code
Ann.
§
48-1-121(b)(3)),
which
prohibits
any
person
“who
receives
any
consideration
from
another
person
primarily
for
advising
the
other
person
as
to
the
value
of
securities
or
their
purchase
or
sale,
whether
through
the
issuance
of
analyses
or
reports
or
otherwise”
from
having
custody
of
client
funds
or
securities
unless
expressly
permitted
by
rule.
The
Securities
Division
states
that
“[t]he
rule
permitting
custody
is
found
in
Tennessee
Securities
Rule
0780-04-03-.07;


the
reliance
of
such
requires
an
investment
adviser
to
be
registered,
unless
specifically
excepted
in
the
rule.”
[Emphasis
added.]
Essentially,
the
Securities
Division
is
taking
the
view
that
being
excluded
from
the
definition
of
an
investment
adviser
(as
is
the
case
for
a
fund
manager
relying
upon
the
de
minimis
rule)
is
not
sufficient
to
avoid
Tennessee’s
custody
requirements.
This
is
a
novel
interpretation
of
Tennessee’s
securities
laws
that
remains
untested.

Compliance
Options
for
Tennessee
Investment
Advisers

Firms
should
carefully
consider
both
legal
and
practical
factors
in
this
regulatory
environment
in
consultation
with
legal
counsel.
Each
firm
must
evaluate
its
specific
circumstances,
compliance
costs,
and
potential
regulatory
exposure
when
determining
its
approach.
The
primary
options
include:

• 
  Option
  1
  –
  Comply
  with
  the
  Securities
  Division’s
  Interpretation.
  Fully
  complying
  with
  the
  Tennessee
  Custody
  Rule
  or
  qualifying
  for
  the
  Private
  Fund
  Exemption
  minimizes
  regulatory
  enforcement
  risk
  and
  provides
  greater
  operational
  certainty.
  However,
  this
  approach
  introduces
  significant
  administrative
  burdens
  and
  annual
  audit
  costs
  and
  may
  require
  limiting
  investments
  to
  qualified
  clients
  or
  registered
  investment
  companies.
• 
  Option
  2
  –
  Maintain
  Current
  Operations
  Based
  on
  Textual
  Interpretation.
  Continuing
  current
  operations
  based
  on
  the
  plain
  language
  of
  the
  exemption
  avoids
  immediate
  compliance
  costs
  and
  preserves
  operational
  flexibility.
  However,
  this
  approach
  carries
  regulatory
  enforcement
  risks
  and
  may
  require
  defending
  the
  position
  through
  administrative
  proceedings
  or
  litigation.
  Firms
  choosing
  this
  path
  should
  consult
  legal
  counsel
  and
  maintain
  detailed
  documentation
  of
  their
  legal
  analysis
  and
  good-faith
  reliance
  on
  the
  regulatory
  text.

The
appropriate
decision
depends
on
each
firm’s
specific
circumstances,
including
risk
tolerance,
financial
capability,
investor
composition,
and
business
model.
Given
the
complexity
and
potential
consequences
of
this
decision,
firms
should
consult
with
qualified
Tennessee
securities
counsel
before
determining
their
compliance
approach.

This
post
is
current
as
of
March
24,
2026.
Regulatory
interpretations
and
requirements
may
change.
Firms
should
monitor
developments
and
consult
with
legal
counsel
regarding
ongoing
compliance
obligations.

One
of
my
objectives
with
my
high
school

IP
class
is
to
impress
on
the
students
how
IP
disputes
can
often
mirror
what
happens
at
recess,
where
the
tables
can
be
turned
against
the
playground
bully
in
an
instant.
To
illustrate
this
phenomenon
with
a
recent
IP
litigation
example,
I
walked
my
class
through
the
recently
filed
complaint
by
the
owners
of
the
online
storefront
and
near-luxury
brand,

Quince,
against
Deckers
Footwear,
which
owns
the
popular
Uggs
footwear
line.
Quince’s
complaint
alleges
that
“Deckers
is
trying
to
prevent
lawful
competition
through
‘template’

lawsuits.”
Quince
goes
further
to
accuse
Deckers
of
operating
a
“litigation
assembly
line”
by
churning
out
template
complaints
asserting
exclusive
rights
over
basic
and
unprotectable
product
features,”
as
part
of
a
scheme
to
solidify
its
majority
position
in
the
“sheepskin
casual
footwear
market”
through
abusive
litigation
practices.
The
filing
is
quite
a
turnaround
from
a
few
years
ago,
when
it
was
Quince
being
sued
by
Deckers
for
trade
dress
and
design
patent
infringement
related
to
Quince’s
popular
dupes
of
certain
Uggs
models,
including
the

Classic
Ultra
Mini. 

With
the
earlier
Deckers
lawsuit
heading
for
trial
with
respect
to
the
design
patent
claims,
it
makes
sense
that
Quince
would
try
to
leverage
its
earlier
win
on
the
trade
dress
issues
to
increase
the
pressure.
For
those
unfamiliar
with
the
prior
round
of
litigation
between
Quince
and
Deckers,
this

article
does
a
good
job
of
hitting
the
highlights.
In
that
case,
Deckers
called
out
Quince’s
approach
of
targeting
“high-revenue”
footwear
styles
for
copying.
In
support,
it
pointed
out
that
Quince
did
not
have
any
footwear
designers
on
staff,
even
as
it
offered
a
number
of
models
that
were
dupes
of
top-selling
Uggs
products.
For
its
part,
Quince
argued
that
Deckers’
design
patent
was
invalid
and
that
the
trade
dress
claims
failed
for
a
host
of
reasons,
including
genericness.
On
summary
judgment,
the
court
declined
to
invalidate
the
design
patent,
hence
the
upcoming
infringement
trial
with
respect
to
those
claims.
On
trade
dress,
however,
it
was
a
clean
sweep
in
Quince’s
favor,
with
the
court
finding
that
“the
designs
were
unprotectable
as
generic.”
This
was
true
even
when
there
was
no
evidence
that
the
competing
designs
predated
those
of
Uggs,
and
where
Quince
provided
no
evidence
demonstrating
that
those
competing
designs
were
not
knock-offs
themselves. 

Barring
settlement,
the
court’s
trade
dress
decision
—
as
well
as
whatever
results
from
the
upcoming
design
patent
trial
—
almost
certainly
faces
appellate
review
in
the
future.
In
the
meantime,
however,
Quince
is
clearly
trying
to
press
its
newfound
advantage
with
its
new
filing
on
antitrust
grounds.
That
filing
puts
Deckers’
prior
trade
dress
litigation
strategy
in
the
crosshairs,
while
introducing
at
least
the
prospect
that
Deckers
will
face
monetary
consequences
for
its
monopolistic
overtures.
Definitely
a
case
to
watch
for
those
of
us
who
consult
with
clients
on
issues
around

dupes.

What
about
my
students,
many
of
whom
are
proud
Uggs
owners?
All
but
one
had
never
heard
of
Quince
—
and
when
I
showed
them
a

listing
on
Quince’s
website
for
the
“Australian
Shearling
Mini
Boot”
the
reaction
was
unanimous.
“Those
look
like
Uggs!”
When
I
pressed
them,
however,
about
what
specific
design
elements
led
them
to
that
exclamation,
some
doubt
about
whether
Quince’s
version
was
a
direct
copy
or
a
dupe
started
to
creep
in.
And
when
I
asked
whether
anyone
would
buy
the
Quince
product
thinking
that
it
was
an
Ugg
product,
the
response
was
unanimous
as
well
that
no
right-thinking
person
would.
As
an
exercise,
it
was
interesting
to
see
how
their
gut
reaction
as
to
whether
a
dupe
was
infringing
shifted
once
they
were
confronted
with
some
of
the
legal
background
on
what
commercial
harm
the
trademark
laws
are
really
designed
to
protect. 

One
can
argue
that
these
students
were
perhaps
more
brand-focused
and
sophisticated
than
average
consumers.
Or
that
their
initial
reaction
was
tainted
by
the
fact
that
for
them
Uggs
was
a
brand
they
wore
themselves,
and
that
the
thought
of
wearing
a
Quince
dupe
was
not
appealing
to
them.
At
the
same
time,
they
applauded
Quince’s
new
filing,
at
least
from
the
perspective
of
trying
to
punish
Deckers
for
its
prior
bullying
behavior
against
less-resourced
erstwhile
competitors.
And
while
they
might
not
be
Quince’s
target
customer
for
the
foreseeable
future,
they
appreciated
Quince’s
efforts
to
promote
fair
competition
at
a
lower
price
point
that
might
be
more
accessible
for
certain
customers.
As
always,
I
left
the
class
impressed
with
the
capacity
of
the
students
to
appreciate
the
competing
narratives,
even
as
their
innate
senses
of
sympathizing
with
the
underdog
seemed
to
propel
them
in
Quince’s
direction
with
respect
to
a
rooting
interest
in
this
dispute.

Ultimately,
at
least
from
Quince’s
perspective,
its
new
filing
is
a
prime
example
of
the
bully
getting
their
due.
While
we
need
to
wait
and
see
how
both
the
new
case
and
the
case
heading
to
trial
turn
out,
I
am
sure
Quince
enjoys
being
on
the
distributing
end
of
a
litigation
punch,
after
absorbing
early
hits
from
Deckers’
end.
It
probably
also
helps
that
Quince
just
closed
on
a
$500
million

funding
round,
because
we
all
know
litigation
is
expensive
and
can
be
a
drain
on
corporate
resources. 
For
now,
it
seems
like
Quince
absorbed
the
lesson
from
the
classic

Charles
Atlas
magazine
ads
—
one
shouldn’t
be
scared
of
confronting
bullies,
but
only
once
you
are
strong
enough
to
take
them
on.

Please
feel
free
to
send
comments
or
questions
to
me
at

[email protected]
or
via
Twitter:

@gkroub.
Any
topic
suggestions
or
thoughts
are
most
welcome.

---

Gaston
Kroub
lives
in
Brooklyn
and
is
a
founding
partner
of Kroub,
Silbersher
&
Kolmykov
PLLC,
an
intellectual
property
litigation
boutique,
and Markman
Advisors
LLC,
a
leading
consultancy
on
patent
issues
for
the
investment
community.
Gaston’s
practice
focuses
on
intellectual
property
litigation
and
related
counseling,
with
a
strong
focus
on
patent
matters.
You
can
reach
him
at [email protected] or
follow
him
on
Twitter: @gkroub.

The
judiciary
is


uniquely
insulated

from
scrutiny,
and
uniquely
unaccountable
to
the
public,
I
told
the
House
Judiciary
Committee’s
Subcommittee
on
the
Courts,
Intellectual
Property,
and
the
Internet
four
years
ago
this
month,
in

written
testimony
to
advocate
for
the
Judiciary
Accountability
Act
(JAA).
That
legislation,
which
I’ve
since

helped
reintroduce,
would
finally
extend
Title
VII
of
the
Civil
Rights
Act
and
other
federal
anti-discrimination
protections
to
more
than
30,000

exempt
judiciary
employees,
including
law
clerks
like
myself,
permanent
court
staff,
and

public
defenders.
Back
then,
I
was
a
family
law
attorney
trying
to
regain
my
footing
after
I
was
harassed,
fired,
and
retaliated
against
during
and
after
my
judicial
clerkship.
Not
only
was
I
singled
out
for
mistreatment
and
fired
during
the
COVID-19
pandemic
but,
a
year
later,
after
securing
my
dream
job
at
the
U.S.
Attorney’s
Office
(USAO),
then
then-judge
provided
a
false,
negative
reference
about
me,
causing
the
USAO
to
deny
me
a
security
clearance
and
revoke
my
job
offer.
Unlike
most
mistreated
clerks,
I
not
only
filed
a
complaint,
but
I
turned
my
negative
experience
into
something
positive,
launching

The
Legal
Accountability
Project
(LAP)
to
correct
injustices
I
personally
experienced
as
a
student
and
clerk,
including
a
lack
of
transparency
in
clerkship
hiring
and
a
lack
of
accountability
for
judges
who
abuse
their
power.

Over
the
past
four
years,
LAP
sparked
a
nationwide
clerkship
transparency
and
judicial
accountability
movement
through

innovative
legal
technology,

legislative
advocacy,
and

thought
leadership.
Our
nationwide

Clerkships
Database
(“Glassdoor
for
Judges”),
which
celebrates
its
second
birthday
next
month,
has
already
served
over
4,000
law
students
and
recent
graduates
with
candid
clerkship
information.
LAP’s
Database
contains
over
2,000
honest
reviews
about
more
than
1,200
judges.
Law
clerks
review
the
judges
they
worked
for
—
anonymously
if
they
choose;
judges
cannot
access
it,
ensuring
honest
feedback;
and
students
pay
a
small
fee
to
access
exponentially
more
information
than
they
otherwise
could
when
applying
for
clerkships.
It’s
the
resource
I
wish
existed
as
a
Washington
University
School
of
Law
student
applying
for
clerkships
a
decade
ago,
inspired
by
my
school’s
inaction:
WashU
failed
to
warn
me
that
the
judge
who
mistreated
me
had
mistreated
others,
and
those
clerks
had
no
safe
place
to
share
their
experience
without
fear
of
retribution. 

LAP

advocates
for
both
the

JAA
and
the

TRUST
Act,
which
would
revise
the
judicial
complaint
process
so
misconduct
investigations
can
continue
even
after
judges
step
down
to
evade
accountability
—
inspired
by
former
judge

Kesha
Tanabe’s
resignation
under
those
circumstances,
and
still
necessary,
since

former
judge
Mark
Wolf
did
the
same
thing
late
last
year.
We’ve
also

urged
Congress
to
use
oversight,
appropriations,
and
the
bully
pulpit
to
force
change.
While
some
congressional
staffers
may
not
appreciate
my
descriptions
of
their
bosses’
infuriating
inaction
—
spineless,
feckless,
cowardly,
and
overly
cautious
—
I
wouldn’t
criticize
if
Congress
did
its
job.
The
judiciary
deserves
blame
for
refusing
to
implement
reform,
but
so
does
Congress.
These
are
congressional
problems
requiring
congressional
solutions.
Congress’
shameful
failure
to
act
by
reintroducing

legislation;
sending
oversight
letters,
holding
a
shadow
hearing,
and
asking
questions
about
workplace
conduct
when
judiciary
officials

appear
before
Congress;
tying
the
judiciary’s

budget
request
to
meaningful
benchmarks
for
ethics
reform;
and
using
the
bully
pulpit
to
educate
the
public
about
the
scope
of
the
problem
and
change
hearts
and
minds,
must
be
called
out
until
they
do.
Congress
seems
intent
on
burying
their
heads
in
the
sand
and
basically
enabling
judicial
misconduct,
given
what
a
light
lift
an
oversight
letter
is
and
the
variety
of
arguably
less
urgent
topics
members
wade
into
instead. 

Legal
academia
and
the
judiciary
look
very
different
from
just
four
years
ago.
Today’s
law
students
won’t
remember
a
time
when
clerkship
hiring
was

less
than
transparent.
Law
clerks
won’t
remember
when
negative
clerkship
experiences
weren’t
discussed,
and
when
mistreated
clerks
had
nowhere
to
go
for
support.
The
media
covers
harassment
in
the
courts
(though
some
publications
remain
silent)
and
it’s
a
topic
of
mainstream
discussion.
Attorneys
and
law
school
administrators
no
longer
pretend
clerkships
are
universally
positive
experiences
and
even
provide
platforms
to
discuss
negative
ones.
Schools
promote
LAP’s
Database
to
students
—
even
some
that
used
to
tell
students
I
wanted
to
“abolish
clerkships”
—
and
a
handful
even
pay
to
subscribe.
It’s
a
total
shift
in
the
zeitgeist. 

We’ve
pressured
the
judiciary
to

release
data
and
reports
they
probably
otherwise
wouldn’t
have;
to
make
some
policy
changes;
and

to
discipline
some
judges,
even
getting
a
few
off
the
bench
entirely.
As
a
former
mistreated
clerk
whose
life
and
career
were
upended
by
the
flawed
systems
I’m
working
to
fix
—
and
someone
who’s
impatient
with
the
pace
of
change
—
systemic
progress
feels
glacial.
Frankly,
until
we
have
a
judiciary
expert
in
Congress
—
and
more
members
who
understand
their
oversight
responsibility
and
care
about
holding
those
who
abuse
their
power
accountable
—
these
problems
won’t
be
solved
from
within. 

There’s
much
more
work
to
do.
LAP
has
inspired
some
clerks
to

report
misconduct.
We
also

file
complaints
ourselves.
But
more
must
report.
At
least
106
law
clerks

endured
actionable
wrongful
conduct
in
2023,

according
to
the
judiciary’s
own
survey
—
a
survey
the
judiciary
has
not
repeated
since
then,
and
one
for
which


not
one
single
member
of
Congress

has
asked
a
single
question
or
sent
a
single
oversight
letter.
If
even
a
quarter
of
them
filed
complaints,
it
would
be
a
sea
change
that
would
force
the
judiciary’s
hand
—
if
only
to
avoid
bad
press
—
to
invest
time,
hire
more
investigators,
request
more
money
from
Congress,
and
either
discipline
those
judges
or
make
meaningful
policy
changes
(or
both).
We’ve
also
proven

whistleblowing
is
impactful,
not
shameful:
those
who’ve
reported
have
been
applauded,
not
scorned
or
retaliated
against.  

Sadly,
the
judiciary
won’t
implement
reforms
unless
Congress
forces
them
to,
and
they
know
Congress
won’t.
Spineless
congressional
Democrats
are
too
cautious,
too
comfortable,
solely
obsessed
with
Trump,
and
believe
constituents
won’t
hold
them
accountable
for
refusing
to
act.
I’ve
never
encountered
more
cowardly
political
tribalism
on
a
particularly
bipartisan
issue,
considering
both

Democratic
and

Republican
judicial
appointees
harass
their
clerks,
and
both

liberal
and

conservative
clerks
endure
mistreatment
without
recourse.
House
Judiciary
Democrats
won’t
hold
Democratic
appointees,
or

judges
who’ve
ruled
against
the
Trump
administration,
accountable
because
they
fear
they’d
be
replaced
with
Trump
sycophants.
Ironically,
“Judiciary”
is
in
the
Committee’s
name,
yet
there’s
been
no
action
for
years
on
judicial
accountability.
Even
when
Democrats
had
the
House
majority,
they
did
basically
nothing
to
hold
judges
accountable.
Democrats’
statements
about
accountability
and
transparency
for
Trump
administration
abuses
of
power
ring
hollow,
when
they
refuse
to
hold
judges
—
the
most
powerful
and
unaccountable
members
of
our
government
—
accountable.
What
hypocrisy. 

The
federal
judiciary
is

at
least
as
unaccountable
as
the
president:
exempt
from
many
laws
while
wielding
enormous
power
over
the
country.
Yet
unaccountable
judges
will
be
on
the
bench
far
longer
than
Trump
will
be
in
power
and,
given
how
unlikely
Congress
is
to
hold
judges
accountable
anytime
soon,
judges
will
be
above
the
law
far
longer.  

Congress
won’t
engage
even
when

judicial
misconduct
is
in
the
news.
Consider
this:
the
clerk
who
filed
the
complaint
against

Judge
Lydia
Kay
Griggsby
is
a
constituent
of
a
House
Judiciary
Democrat,
yet
their
congresswoman
refused
to
send
an
oversight
letter
to
the
Administrative
Office
of
the
U.S.
Courts
(AO)
regarding
the
judiciary’s
aforementioned
workplace
climate
survey,
even
after
I
provided
her
office
with
what
she’d
need
to
simply
sign
her
name
and
offered
to
write
the
letter
myself.
I’ve
told
that
congresswoman
and
her
staff
that
she’s
not
doing
her
job
of
conducting
oversight
over
the
courts.
Her
constituents
should
hold
her
accountable,
but
she
probably
assumes
they
won’t
know,
understand,
or
care.
I
think
voters
are
smarter
than
that,
and
they
care
about

corruption
and
abuses
of
power
as
much
as
kitchen
table
issues. 

Most
people
understand
this
disturbing
irony:

judges

interpret
our
laws
while
not
subject
to
those
same
laws,
committing
misconduct
behind
the
bench
while
adjudicating
others’
misconduct
in
front
of
the
bench.
Judges
rule
on
Title
VII
(harassment)
cases
while
under
investigation
for
harassment.
We
cannot
trust
judges
to
be
fair
and
impartial
arbiters
of
disputes
when
their
own
workplace
conduct
is
so
lawless. 

We
are
not
powerless.
I

couldn’t
in
good
conscience
encourage
anyone
to
apply
for
clerkships
without

subscribing
to
LAP’s
Database.
Applicants
should
take
agency
over
their
lives
and
careers
and
inform
themselves
before
applying.
And
clerks
should

submit
surveys
—
positive,
negative,
or
nuanced.
LAP
wants
to
hear
everything.
This
is
accountability
through
transparency.
Mistreated
clerks
say
they
wish
this
resource
existed
when
they
were
applying;
and
if
they
knew
how
bad
their
clerkships
would
be,
they
wouldn’t
have
accepted
them.
Now,
they
should
file
complaints.
It’s
more
empowering
than
it
is
daunting. 

And
the
public
should
make
their
voices
heard
regarding
lawless
judges.
Do
we
want
judges
interpreting
our
laws
and
deciding
our
rights
who
are

above
the
law?
Whether
you
clerked
or
not,
whether
you’re
an
attorney
or
not
—
the
lack
of
accountability
in
our
judiciary
threatens

all
of
us.
Tell
your
member
of
Congress
to
send
an
oversight
letter,
sign
onto
legislation,
withhold
judiciary
funding
until
reforms
are
implemented,
pen
an
op-ed,
or
use
the
bully
pulpit
right
now.
And
if
they
won’t
act,
2026
is
an
election
year:
fire
them
and
replace
them
with
someone
who
will. 

It’s
easy
to
lose
sight
of
the
cultural
change
LAP
has
created.
I
get
frustrated
when
institutions
with
the
resources
to
solve
these
problems
won’t
act,
knowing
more
clerks
will
endure
what
I
endured
in
the
meantime.
As
someone
who
identified
an
unmet
need
four
years
ago
and
filled
the
void
myself,
there’s
no
one
more
motivated
to
create
meaningful
change
than
someone
working
to
fix
systems
that
personally
screwed
them
over.  

---

Aliza
Shatzman
is
the
President
and
Founder
of The
Legal
Accountability
Project,
a
nonprofit
aimed
at
ensuring
that
law
clerks
have
positive
clerkship
experiences,
while
extending
support
and
resources
to
those
who
do
not.
She
regularly
writes
and
speaks
about
judicial
accountability
and
clerkships.
Reach
out
to
her
via
email
at [email protected] and
follow
her
on
Twitter
@AlizaShatzman.

Slam
dunking
your
point
via
demonstration
is
a
feather
in
the
cap
every
trial
attorney
should
strive
for.
But
there
are
times
where
proving
your
point
comes
at
a
great
cost.
Take
Clement
Vallandigham,
the
lawyer
who
successfully
helped
his
client
beat
a
murder
charge

by
fatally
demonstrating
the
amount
of
gun
powder
residue
one
should
expect
of
a
point
blank
range
shot.
Thankfully
this
story
manages
the
point
proving
without
being
nearly
as
fatal
—
the
founding
partner
of
the
Social
Media
Victims
Law
Center
got
in
trouble
for
not
being
able
to
control
his
use
of
tech
in
the
courtroom.
We
covered
Matthew
Bergman’s
inappropriate
selfies
and
Zoom
calls
in
the
courtroom
last
month,
but
we
finally
know
how
much
the
sanctions
will
cost
him.

ABA
Journal
has
coverage:

A
plaintiffs
lawyer
recently
received
a
$1,100
sanction
for
taking
a
selfie
and
conducting
a
Zoom
interview
from
inside
the
Los
Angeles
Superior
Court
during
the
first
trial
alleging
that
Meta
Platforms
and
YouTube
caused
addictions
in
adolescents.
…
“I
am
extremely
embarrassed
and
sorry
this
court
has
to
spent
one
second
of
its
time
in
the
midst
of
this
historic
trial
dealing
with
my
transgression,”
Bergman
told
Kuhl,
according
to
the
story.
“It’s
shameful,
and
I’m
deeply
sorry
and
terribly
ashamed.”

Bergman
called
the
incident
a
“cataclysmic
moment
in
my
career,”
the
story
said,
and
he
said
he
looked
to
his
faith
for
guidance
on
repentance.

$1,100
is
a
nice
chunk
of
change,
but
the
greatest
loss
has
to
be
the
damage
to
his
reputation.
Hopefully
some
time
will
pass
and
he’ll
be
able
to
spin
it
into
a
persuasive
moment
in
closing
arguments.
“If
even
I,
a
grown
ass
man,
have
problems
controlling
myself
when
it
comes
to
taking
selfies
for
social
media,
imagine
what
these
young
and
impressionable
minds
must
be
going
through?”

To
close:
not
only
are
pictures
worth
a
thousand
words,
they
can
also
cost
you
about
a
thousand
bucks!
Mind
the
courthouse
rules
folks!

Attorney
At
Social
Media
Addiction
Trial
Takes
Selfie,
Receives
$1,100
Sanction
[ABA
Journal]

Earlier:

Oh,
The
Irony:
Tech
Accountability
Case
Sidelined
By
Lawyer’s
Tech
Violations

---

Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s
.
 He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boat
builder
who
is
learning
to
swim
and
is
interested
in
rhetoric,
Spinozists
and
humor.
Getting
back
in
to
cycling
wouldn’t
hurt
either.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected]
and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

If
you’re
subscribed
to
the
various
legal
industry
newsletters,
you
might
have
noticed
that
this
morning’s
installment
of
the
American
Lawyer
Morning
Update
shared
a
couple
of
stories
about
the
ongoing
crisis
in
the
Middle
East.
Or,
perhaps
more
accurately,
a
couple
of
stories
about
Biglaw
partners
fretting
about
making
their
next
yacht
payment
because
of
the
ongoing
crisis
in
the
Middle
East.

Specifically,
here’s
a
screencap
from
the
newsletter
that
went
out
this
morning:

“The
Biggest
Disruption
Since
Covid
for
Energy
Lawyers”
and
“How
Much
Is
the
US
and
Israel’s
War
on
Iran
Affecting
M&A?”
On
the
one
hand,
you
have
to
appreciate
a
trade
publication
for
its
commitment
to
the
bit.
On
the
other
hand….

Kicking
off
a
shooting
war
in
the
Middle
East
undeniably
impacts
lawyers.
That’s
newsworthy
within
the
industry.
We
covered
it
here
at
Above
the
Law,
for
example
discussing

the
evacuation
plans
Biglaw
firms
activated
(quoting
the
American
Lawyer’s
earlier
take
on
the
same
subject
even!)
when
missiles
started
flying
across
the
Middle
East.
With
Biglaw
colleagues
sheltering
in
place
in
Dubai
while
drones
target
nearby
buildings,
that’s
a
legal
industry
story
with
obvious
human
stakes.

And
there’s
certainly
an
economic
story
to
be
had
here.
The
war
has
upended
a
region
with
major
energy
significance.
But
there’s
a
subtle
distinction
between
framing
a
headline
around
the
war
being
“a
new
challenge
for
global
energy”
and
“a
big
disruption
for
energy
lawyers.”
The
former
sounds
like
another
economic
dimension
to
a
global
news
story
and
the
latter
sounds
like
it’s
an
inconvenience
for
lawyers.

Pairing
it
with
an
image
of
black
smoke
rising
from
an
explosion
gives
real,
“Won’t
Someone
PLEASE
Think
Of
The
Billables?!?”
energy.
Just
show
a
generic
oil
tanker
if
you’re
trying
to
tell
an
energy
market
story.

The
Deal
Watch
article
isn’t
even
really
about
Iran.
It
opens
by
noting
that
M&A
deal
volume
for
2026
is
20%
below
2025
levels
—
and,
you
know,
thoughts
and
prayers
for
the
deal
lawyers
—
and
then
cites
recent
reports
from
the
financial
industry
disputing
how
much
to
blame
the
war
for
M&A
woes.
Then
the
bulk
of
the
article
is
a
routine
rundown
of
big
deals
of
the
week.
The
paired
image
of
a
destroyed
apartment
building
doesn’t
seem
a
natural
match
with
the
subject
of
deal
flow.

That
said,
maybe
I’m
crazy,
but
I
kind
of
appreciate
this
specific
story
preview
on
a
subversive
level.
Unlike
the
first
headline’s
“Iran
War,”
this
title
assigns
agency
to
the
U.S.
and
Israel
for
initiating
the
conflict.
Hell,
I’m
using
“Iran
War”
in
my
headline
because
“US
and
Israel’s
War
on
Iran”
is
a
whole
lot
of
extra
words
—
so
that’s
a
choice.
Rather
than
using
a
generic
image
of
smoke
or
showing
a
facility
damaged
by
Iranian
drones,
the
picture
shows
a
destroyed
residential
building
in
Iran,
doubling
down
on
assigning
responsibility
to
Trump
and
Netanyahu
for
kicking
off
the
war
and
triggering
the
ensuing
fallout.
There
might
be
a
lot
more
going
on
here
than
it
seems
at
first
glance.

Still,
there’s
a
delicate
balance
to
writing
a
trade
story
about
a
life
and
death
event.
Create
some
distance
between
the
human
cost
and
the
abstract
legal
market
impacts.
Lawyers
will
still
find
their
way
to
the
story
because
no
one
is
better
at
thinking
everything
is
really
about
them
than
lawyers
—
the
news
doesn’t
need
to
give
them
any
help.

Earlier:

Biglaw
Drafts
Evacuation
Plans
As
Missiles
Fly
In
The
Middle
East

---

Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or

Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a

Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature, Quote
of
the
Day.

[The
nine
firms
that
made
deals
with
Trump
are]
not
a
place
where
any
well-regarded
litigator
wants
to
be—I
don’t
think
that’s
good
for
your
brand.
I
don’t
think
that’s
good
for
what
we’re
supposed
to
stand
up
for,
which
is
fighting
the
government
and
fighting
for
the
rule
of
law.

— Beth
Wilkinson,
founding
partner
of
Wilkinson
Stekloff,
in
comments
given
to

Bloomberg
Law,
concerning
the
“great
advantage”
litigation
boutique
firms
have
had
thanks
to
having
“been
insulated”
from
Donald
Trump’s
attacks
on
Biglaw
firms.
In
total,
nine
firms
made
deals
with
Trump,
totaling
$940
million
in
free
legal
services
for
causes
supported
by
the
administration.

---

Staci
Zaretsky is
the
managing
editor
of
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to email her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.

Chinese
firms
are
rapidly
consolidating
their
presence
in
Zimbabwe’s
cement
sector,
now
accounting
for
the
majority
of
players
in
the
industry
and
reflecting
a
broader
expansion
of
Beijing’s
influence
across
key
economic
sectors.
According
to
Ndima
Rawana,
six
of
the
country’s
eight
cement
producers
are
Chinese-owned,
leaving
just
two
local-linked
players
—
PPC
Zimbabwe
and
Khayah
Cement
Limited.
He
made
the
remarks
during
a
Capital
Markets
Day
hosted
by
parent
company
PPC
Limited.
Rawana
highlighted
that
the
dominance
of
Chinese
firms
is
not
only
reshaping
competition,
but
also
creating
challenges
in
skills
availability.
He
noted
that
many
of
the
Chinese-operated
plants
rely
heavily
on
their
own
personnel,
making
it
difficult
for
local
companies
to
recruit
experienced
professionals
from
within
the
market.
As
a
result,
firms
like
PPC
Zimbabwe
are
increasingly
forced
to
invest
in
developing
their
own
talent
pipelines.

The
cement
sector
shift
mirrors
a
broader
trend
across
Zimbabwe’s
economy.
Chinese
companies
already
have
a
strong
foothold
in
lithium
mining
through
firms
such
as
Sinomine
Resource
Group,
Zhejiang
Huayou
Cobalt
and
Suzhou
TA&A
Ultra
Clean
Technology,
which
control
key
assets
including
Bikita
Minerals
and
Arcadia
Mine.
Their
presence
has
helped
position
Zimbabwe
as
a
critical
supplier
in
the
global
battery
minerals
market.
Beyond
mining
and
cement,
Chinese
imports
—
particularly
low-cost
electrical
goods
and
plastics
—
have
also
gained
significant
ground
in
local
markets,
further
extending
Beijing’s
commercial
reach.
In
response
to
intensifying
competition,
PPC
has
moved
to
strengthen
its
position
through
a
strategic
partnership
with
Sinoma
Overseas
Development
Corporation,
an
international
engineering
subsidiary
of
Sinoma
International
Engineering.
The
collaboration,
announced
in
2024,
is
aimed
at
improving
operational
efficiency,
modernising
technology,
reducing
costs
and
expanding
production
capacity
across
PPC’s
regional
operations.

PPC
chief
executive
Matias
Cardarelli
said
Sinoma
has
already
begun
assessing
Zimbabwean
operations,
with
early
indications
pointing
to
significant
growth
opportunities.
He
suggested
that
the
upside
potential
in
Zimbabwe
could
even
surpass
that
of
PPC’s
South
African
operations.
The
growing
dominance
of
Chinese
firms
in
sectors
like
cement
underscores
a
structural
shift
in
Zimbabwe’s
industrial
landscape
—
one
that
is
increasingly
defined
by
foreign
capital,
technology
partnerships
and
evolving
competitive
dynamics.

Source:


Zimbabwe:
Chinese
firms’
growing
presence
in
various
sectors
across
the
country
raise
competition
and
skills
availability
concerns

–
Business
and
Human
Rights
Centre

Post
published
in:

Business

Margaret
Ryan
has
opted
out
of
MAGAland.

The
former
head
of
the
SEC’s
Enforcement
Division
—
a
job
that,
historically,
involved,
you
know,
enforcing
securities
laws
—
stepped
down
after
what

Reuters
describes
as
ongoing
clashes
with
Trump-appointed
leadership.
And
not
to
“spend
more
time
with
her
family,”
but
over
whether
the
agency
should
actually
pursue
fraud
cases
when
the
names
involved
start
sounding
a
little
too
familiar.

According
to
Reuters,
Ryan
pushed
for
more
aggressive
enforcement,
including
in
matters
touching
Trumpworld-adjacent
figures
like
Justin
Sun
and
Elon
Musk.
That
enthusiasm
reportedly
ran
headlong
into
resistance
from
SEC
Chair
Paul
Atkins
and
fellow
Republican
commissioners,
who
now
exercise
tighter
control
over
whether
enforcement
staff
can
even
open
investigations
in
the
first
place.
Nothing
says
“independent
regulator”
quite
like
requiring
political
appointees
to
greenlight
investigations
into
their
boss’s
allies.

The
SEC
insists
everything
is
fine.
A
spokesperson
emphasized
that
decisions
are
based
on
“facts,
the
law,
and
policy,
not
on
politics,”
and
that
internal
disagreement
is
normal.

I
mean…
technically,
rearranging
deck
chairs
is
a
form
of
maritime
management.
Because
the
“debate
and
discussion”
the
SEC
touts
is
actually
a
process
where
enforcement
staff
loses
autonomy,
politically
sensitive
cases
stall
out,
and
the
person
in
charge
of
enforcement
decides
she’d
rather
not
be
complicit
in
whatever
this
is
becoming.

Despite
being
an
unconventional
choice
for
Enforcement
head
(with
little
previous
securities
law
experience),
Ryan
built
a
reputation
inside
the
agency
for
backing
career
staff.
She
reportedly
even
called
out
defense
attorneys
who
tried
to
bypass
those
staffers
and
take
their
arguments
straight
to
leadership.
Which,
given
all
that’s
going
down
at
the
SEC,
looks
at
lot
like
influence-peddling.
Oh,
and
one
of
those
attorneys
is
none
other
than

Paul
Hastings
partner
Brad
Bondi…
who
just
happens
to
be
the
brother
of
Attorney
General
Pam
Bondi.
He
declined
to
comment.

And
let’s
be
very
clear
about
something:
Margaret
Ryan
is
not
some
bleeding-heart
liberal
resistance
figure
storming
out
in
protest.
She’s
a
dyed-in-the-wool
conservative,
a
former
clerk
to
Justice
Clarence
Thomas
and,
not
incidentally,
someone
on
Donald
Trump’s
shortlist
as
a

potential
Supreme
Court
nominee.
This
is
a
George
W.
Bush–appointed
military
appellate
judge,
a
Marine,
with
exactly
the
kind
of
conservative
bona
fides
that
used
to
get
you
a
fast
pass
in
Republican
legal
circles.
Which
makes
her
exit
all
the
more
damning.
When
even

that
lawyer
can’t
make
peace
with
what’s
happening
inside
the
SEC,
it’s
not
partisan
sniping,
and,
for
the
GOP
the
call
is,
in
fact,
coming
from
inside
the
house.

In
the
year
of
our
lord
2026,
it’s
crystal
clear
the
rule
of
law
is
getting
worked
over
like
it
owes
the
administration
money.
And

lawyers
that
don’t
want
to
permanently
sully
their
professional
reputation
are
peacing
out.
Departures
like
Ryan’s
draws
a
brighter
line
between
the
lawyers
who
are
unwilling
to
compromise
on
the
fundamentals
and
the
ones
who
are
still
inside,
helping
to
redefine
“enforcement
discretion”
into
something
politically
expeditious
for
the
far-right.

History
suggests
that
kind
of
behavior
has
a
shelf
life.
And
when
the
political
protection
evaporates,
what’s
left
is
a

disciplinary
record
waiting
to
happen.

---

Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of

The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email

her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter

@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon

@[email protected].

• When
  the
  National
  Assembly
  and
  the
  Senate
  adjourn,
  they
  set
  down
  all
  outstanding
  business
  on
  their
  Order
  Papers
  (i.e.
  their
  agendas)
  for
  the
  next
  appropriate
  sitting
  day. 
  There
  is
  usually
  too
  much
  to
  be
  covered
  in
  one
  day
  so
  whatever
  is
  not
  dealt
  with
  is
  postponed
  to
  the
  next
  appropriate
  day.
• Both
  Houses
  of
  Parliament
  can
  change
  the
  order
  in
  which
  they
  consider
  business.

THE
NATIONAL
ASSEMBLY

Tuesday
24th
March

Bills
to
be
dealt
with:

The
Assembly
is
expected
to
deal
with
the
following
Bills:

• 
  Medical
  Services
  Amendment
  Bill [link]

The
Assembly
in
committee
will
consider
amendments
which
the
Senate
made
to
this
Bill [The
Senate
resolved
to
delete
the
clause
which
amended
the
Termination
of
Pregnancy
Act
to
simplify
the
procedures
for
obtaining
an
abortion]

• 
  Climate
  Change
  Amendment
  Bill [link]

The
Second
Reading
of
this
Bill
is
due
to
begin

• 
  Public
  Procurement
  and
  Disposal
  of
  Public
  Assets
  Amendment
  Bill [link]

The
Second
Reading
of
This
Bill
is
due
to
continue

• 
  State
  Service
  (Pensions)
  Bill [link]

Consideration
of
the
Parliamentary
Legal
Committee’s
adverse
report
on
this
Bill [link] will
continue.

• 
  Mines
  and
  Minerals
  Bill [link]

The
Assembly
is
also
due
to
continue
its
consideration
of
the
PLC’s
adverse
report
on
this
Bill.

• 
  Public
  Service
  Amendment
  Bill [link]

Consideration
of
the
PLC’s
adverse
report
on
this
Bill
will
continue.

Reports
of
constitutional
and
statutory
bodies

The
Assembly
will
deal
with
reports
by
the
following
bodies:

• Reports
  by
  the
  Zimbabwe
  Electoral
  Commission
  on
  by-elections
  held
  in
  June,
  August,
  September
  and
  October
  2025
• 2024
  report
  of
  the
  Zimbabwe
  Gender
  Commission
• 2024
  report
  of
  the
  Zimbabwe
  Anti-Corruption
  Commission

International
agreements
to
be
approved

The
Assembly
will
be
asked
to
approve
the
following
international
agreements:

• Convention
  Establishing
  the
  International
  Organisation
  for
  Mediation
  (2025)
• UN
  Agreement
  for
  the
  Adoption
  of
  Uniform
  Technical
  Prescriptions
  for
  Wheeled
  Vehicles
  (1958) [link]
• UN
  Agreement
  for
  Establishing
  Global
  Technical
  Regulations
  for
  Wheeled
  Vehicles
  (1998) [link]
• UN
  Agreement
  for
  Adopting
  Uniform
  Conditions
  for
  Periodic
  Technical
  Inspection
  of
  Wheeled
  Vehicles
  (1997) [link]
• UN
  Agreement
  for
  the
  International
  Carriage
  of
  Dangerous
  Goods
  by
  Road
  (1957) [link]
• UN
  Convention
  on
  Road
  Signs
  and
  Signals
  (1968) [link]
• African
  Road
  Safety
  Charter [link]
• Protocol
  to
  the
  Convention
  on
  International
  Interests
  in
  Mobile
  Equipment
  on
  Matters
  Specific
  to
  Railway
  Rolling
  Stock
  (2007) [link].

Reports
of
parliamentary
committees

The
Assembly
will
deal
with
reports
on
the
following
topics:

• 2023
  financial
  statements
  of
  the
  National
  Handling
  Services
• 2023
  financial
  statements
  of
  the
  Agricultural
  and
  Rural
  Development
  Authority
• 2023
  financial
  statements
  of
  the
  Grain
  Marketing
  Board
• 2020
  financial
  statements
  of
  Air
  Zimbabwe
• The
  state
  of
  cultural
  sites
  in
  relation
  to
  tourism
• 2025
  first
  and
  second
  quarter
  budget
  performance
  reports
  of
  the
  Ministry
  of
  Industry
  and
  Commerce
• Operations
  of
  the
  Zimbabwe
  Women’s
  Microfinance
  Bank
• 2024
  fourth
  quarter
  Budget
  Performance
  Report
  of
  the
  Ministry
  of
  Information,
  Publicity
  and
  Broadcasting
  Services
• Projects
  implemented
  by
  the
  Lotteries
  and
  Gaming
  Board
  as
  part
  of
  its
  corporate
  social
  responsibility
• 2022
  financial
  statements
  of
  the
  Ministry
  of
  Finance,
  Economic
  Development
  and
  Investment
  Promotion
• The
  2024
  fourth
  quarter
  Budget
  Performance
  Reports
  of
  the
  Ministries
  of
  Public
  Service,
  Labour
  and
  Social
  Welfare
  and
  Skills
  Audit
  and
  Development

Petitions
received

The
Assembly
will
consider
a
report
on
the
following
petitions:

• Petition
  on
  the
  inclusion
  of
  women
  in
  traditional
  courts
• Petition
  on
  community
  care-givers

Motions
on
the
National
Assembly
order
paper

Motions
set
to
be
debated
by
the
Assembly
will
cover
the
following
topics:

• Adoption
  of
  the
  African
  Parliamentary
  Network
  Against
  Illicit
  Financial
  Flows
  Initiative
• Measures
  to
  prevent
  vandalism
  of
  infrastructure
  and
  natural
  resources
• Measures
  to
  provide
  equitable
  care
  and
  treatment
  of
  diabetes
• Youth
  quotas
  in
  provincial
  councils,
  local
  authorities
  and
  public
  service
  boards
• Measures
  to
  improve
  cultural
  creativity
  in
  Zimbabwe.
• A
  national
  innovation
  procurement
  policy
  to
  encourage
  procurement
  from
  tertiary
  institutions
  and
  state-owned
  enterprises
• The
  use
  of
  artificial
  intelligence
  in
  recruiting
  nurses
  and
  teachers
• The
  use
  of
  artificial
  intelligence
  in
  adjudication
  of
  government
  tenders
• Requiring
  all
  Premier
  Soccer
  League
  clubs
  to
  have
  at
  least
  30
  to
  40
  per
  cent
  of
  local
  players
• Review
  of
  employment
  tax
  (PAYE)
  brackets
• Measures
  to
  control
  machete-wielding
  gangsters
  in
  rural
  areas
• The
  erection
  of
  public
  galleries
  and
  statues
  to
  preserve
  Zimbabwe’s
  cultural
  heritage

Wednesday
25th
March

Note: 
On
Wednesdays,
questions
and
other
private
members’
business
have
precedence
over
government
business.

Questions
set
down
for
answer

Among questions set
down
for
Ministers
to
answer
in
the
National
Assembly
on
Wednesday
are questions on the
following
issues:

• Radio
  and
  television
  time
  allocated
  to
  political
  parties
  between
  2023
  and
  2025
  and
  whether
  the
  Zimbabwe
  Electoral
  Commission
  monitors
  media
  fairness
  between
  elections
• Exemption
  of
  deaf
  persons
  from
  need
  to
  have
  vehicle
  radio
  licences
• Revenue
  collected
  from
  vehicle
  licence
  fees
  between
  January
  and
  June
  2025
  and
  its
  impact
  on
  access
  to
  information
• Reduction
  of
  radio
  licence
  fees
• Requirement
  that
  motorcycle
  owners
  purchase
  radio
  licences
  when
  licensing
  their
  motorcycles
• Protection
  of
  teachers
  and
  other
  civil
  servants
  who
  are
  in
  conflict
  with
  community
  members
• Protection
  of
  rape
  victims
  from
  being
  identified
  in
  the
  media
• Votes
  for
  Zimbabweans
  in
  the
  diaspora
• Compensation
  for
  victims
  of
  political
  violence
  since
  1980
• Measures
  to
  ensure
  meaningful
  public
  consultation
  on
  constitutional
  amendments,
  and
  to
  safeguard
  the
  independence
  of
  constitutional
  commissions
• Town
  status
  for
  Ruwa
• Policy
  on
  conditions
  of
  service
  for
  senior
  employees
  of
  local
  authorities
• Mechanisms
  for
  regular
  audits
  of
  service
  delivery
  in
  high-density
  urban
  areas
• Lifting
  the
  moratorium
  on
  processing
  of
  applications
  for
  change
  of
  land
  use
• Government
  policy
  on
  local
  authorities
  billing
  for
  water
  in
  local
  currency
• Payment
  of
  service
  charges
  to
  local
  authorities
  by
  residents
  who
  provide
  their
  own
  services
• Government
  policy
  on
  allowing
  public
  access
  to
  minutes
  of
  urban
  council
  meetings
• Measures
  to
  ensure
  that
  retailers
  and
  industries
  remain
  in
  business
• Purchase
  of
  electricity
  at
  non-commercial
  rates
  by
  local
  authorities
• Strategies
  to
  end
  load-shedding
  by
  ZESA
• Simplifying
  reporting
  of
  faults
  to
  ZESA
• Measures
  to
  prevent
  tourism
  degrading
  the
  environment
  in
  the
  Zambezi
  Valley,
  and
  to
  prevent
  poaching
  in
  the
  Valley
• Review
  of
  civil
  service
  salaries
  in
  2026
• Extending
  the
  motor
  vehicle
  rebate
  to
  State-owned
  enterprises
• Revenue
  collected
  from
  airtime
  levy
  and
  sugar
  tax
  in
  2024
  and
  2025
• Adjustment
  of
  the
  interbank
  policy
  rate
  with
  inflation
  goals
• Prescriptive
  asset
  thresholds
  for
  pension
  funds
• Policy
  on
  making
  the
  ZiG
  currency
  fully
  fungible
  locally
  and
  internationally
• Re-registration
  of
  companies
  referred
  to
  in
  the
  Global
  Compensation
  Deed
  for
  compensating
  dispossessed
  farmers
• The
  legality
  of
  the
  Ministry
  of
  Finance
  making
  payments
  directly
  to
  suppliers
  of
  goods
  and
  services
• Oversight
  mechanisms
  applicable
  to
  the
  Mutapa
  Investment
  Fund
• Measures
  to
  ensure
  that
  all
  State
  procurements
  are
  done
  lawfully
• Measures
  to
  prevent
  service
  providers,
  e.g.
  local
  authorities,
  from
  using
  currency
  exchange
  rates
  other
  than
  the
  official
  rates
• The
  protection
  of
  citizens,
  particularly
  low
  income
  earners,
  from
  hardship
  caused
  by
  the
  IMF
  staff-monitored
  programme
• Ring-fencing
  of
  government
  social
  safety
  nets
• The
  dispossessed
  farmers
  who
  have
  been
  compensated
  and
  the
  amounts
  paid
  to
  them
• Investigation
  of
  cash
  transactions
  conducted
  outside
  the
  banking
  system
• Government
  policy
  on
  people
  keeping
  large
  sums
  in
  cash
• Construction
  and
  maintenance
  of
  roads,
  dams
  and
  other
  infrastructure
• Returning
  the
  vehicle
  licensing
  function
  to
  local
  authorities
• The
  average
  cost
  of
  constructing
  one
  kilometre
  of
  trunk
  road
• Plans
  to
  deal
  with
  school
  drop-outs
  due
  to
  pregnancies
  and
  early
  marriages,
  particularly
  in
  border
  areas
• Government
  policy
  on
  using
  debt
  collectors
  to
  recover
  unpaid
  school
  fees
• Government
  policy
  on
  CAMPFIRE
• When
  the
  national
  soccer
  team
  will
  use
  local
  stadiums
  for
  international
  and
  regional
  matches
• Abuse
  and
  politicisation
  of
  government
  food
  aid
• Repatriating
  the
  remains
  of
  freedom
  fighters
  who
  died
  in
  Zambia

Thursday
26th
March

The
Assembly
will
continue
with
business
left
over
from
Tuesday

THE
SENATE

Tuesday
24th
March

Reports
of
constitutional
and
statutory
commissions
to
be
considered

The
Senate
is
expected
to
consider
the
following
reports:

• Reports
  of
  the
  Zimbabwe
  Electoral
  Commission
  on
  by-elections
  held
  in
  October
  and
  November
  2024
  and
  January,
  June,
  August,
  September
  and
  October
  2025
• 2024
  annual
  report
  of
  the
  Zimbabwe
  Gender
  Commission
• 2024
  annual
  report
  of
  the
  Zimbabwe
  Anti-Corruption
  Commission
• 2024
  annual
  report
  of
  the
  Zimbabwe
  Electoral
  Commission
• 2024
  annual
  report
  of
  the
  Judicial
  Service
  Commission
• 2024
  annual
  report
  of
  the
  Attorney-General’s
  Office
• 2024
  annual
  report
  of
  the
  National
  Prosecuting
  Authority
• 2024
  annual
  report
  of
  the
  Zimbabwe
  Human
  Rights
  Commission

International
agreements
to
be
approved

The
Senate
will
be
asked
to
approve
the
following
international
agreements:

• UN
  Agreement
  for
  the
  Adoption
  of
  Uniform
  Technical
  Prescriptions
  for
  Wheeled
  Vehicles
  (1958) [link]
• UN
  Agreement
  for
  Establishing
  Global
  Technical
  Regulations
  for
  Wheeled
  Vehicles
  (1998) [link]
• UN
  Agreement
  for
  Adopting
  Uniform
  Conditions
  for
  Periodic
  Technical
  Inspection
  of
  Wheeled
  Vehicles
  (1997) [link]
• UN
  Agreement
  for
  the
  International
  Carriage
  of
  Dangerous
  Goods
  by
  Road
  (1957) [link]
• UN
  Convention
  on
  Road
  Signs
  and
  Signals
  (1968) [link]
• African
  Road
  Safety
  Charter [link]
• Protocol
  to
  the
  Convention
  on
  International
  Interests
  in
  Mobile
  Equipment
  on
  Matters
  Specific
  to
  Railway
  Rolling
  Stock
  (2007) [link].

Parliamentary
committee
reports
to
be
considered

The
Senate
is
expected
to
consider
reports
on
the
following
topics:

• The
  state
  of
  our
  heritage,
  culture
  and
  monuments
  in
  relation
  to
  tourism
• Access
  to
  safe
  clean
  drinking
  water
  in
  rural
  areas
• Recurring
  droughts
• Access
  to
  mining
  by
  women,
  youths
  and
  persons
  with
  disabilities
• The
  state
  of
  prisons
  in
  Zimbabwe

Motions
to
be
dealt
with
by
the
Senate

The
Senate
is
expected
to
debate
motions
on
the
following
topics:

• Resuscitating
  the
  manufacturing
  sector
• Measures
  to
  prevent
  child
  marriages
  and
  teenage
  pregnancies
• Mechanisms
  to
  prevent
  murder
  in
  Zimbabwe
• Vandalism
  of
  State
  property,
  national
  resources
  and
  infrastructure
• Unpaid
  domestic
  and
  care
  work
• Reply
  to
  the
  President’s
  speech

Wednesday
25th
March

The
Senate
will
continue
with
business
not
dealt
with
on
Tuesday

Thursday
26th
March

Questions
set
down
for
answer

The
following
questions
have
been
tabled
for
Ministers
to
answer
in
the
Senate
on
Thursday:

• Measures
  to
  mitigate
  the
  suspension
  of
  visas
  to
  the
  USA
• The
  inclusion
  of
  elderly
  farmers
  in
  the
  Pfumfudza
  agricultural
  support
  programme
• Unspent
  funds
  intended
  for
  vulnerable
  members
  of
  society

Bills
Being
Considered
by
the
Parliamentary
Legal
Committee

The
PLC
is
considering
the
following
Bills:

• 
  Zimbabwe
  School
  Examination
  Council
  Amendment
  Bill [link]
• 
  Biological
  and
  Toxin
  Weapons
  Crimes
  Bill [link]
• 
  Tourism
  Bill [link] (the
  Committee
  is
  considering
  amendments
  made
  by
  the
  National
  Assembly)

Veritas
makes
every
effort
to
ensure
reliable
information,
but
cannot
take
legal
responsibility
for
information
supplied.

Post
published
in:

Featured